Evidence of the written statement prepared by the defendant

Evidence of the written statement prepared by the defendant.

Article 313 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Incheon support in the first instance court, Seoul High Court Decision 66No78 delivered on May 23, 1966

The appeal is dismissed.

Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor of the Seoul High Prosecutor's Office on his behalf.

(1) The admissibility of confessions is denied only when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that confessions made by the defendant are not made voluntarily by means of adviser, assault, threat, unreasonable prolongedness of physical restraint, deception, etc.

Although there is no evidence suggesting that the defendant et al. were forced to make a confession of the crime in the above manner, among the suspect interrogation records on the defendant et al. of the prosecutor who corresponds to the facts charged, the entry of the defendant et al. in the suspect interrogation protocol on the defendant et al. shall be rejected because there is no voluntariness, and the prosecutor's protocol of verifying the process of handling affairs and the statement prepared by the defendant et al. shall be adopted as evidence as long as the authenticity is acknowledged by the testimony of the maker of the documents in the court, they shall be admitted as evidence, despite the fact that there is no voluntartariness, the protocol of verifying the process of handling affairs by the judicial police officer shall be rejected, and the contents of the statement prepared by the defendant et al. shall not be mentioned again in the evidence judgment, and (ii) there is no special circumstance that the contents that the defendant et al. have led to the confession, and thus, the court below's rejection of the confession by misunderstanding the legal principles on free evaluation.

(1) Once comparing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance that was affirmed and maintained by the court below, the suspect examination record against the defendant by the public prosecutor, etc., evidence of evidence prepared by the judicial police officer, and contents consistent with the facts charged are extremely clicked by the defendant, etc. in the court, and the defendant et al. went back to the house of non-indicted 3's witness who is not less than 320 meters away from the place of crime and c20 meters away from the place of crime, and the defendant et al. went to the house of non-indicted 3's body, and he was no more than 80 meters away from the outside of the defendant et al. at that time, and the defendant et al. al. al. al. al. started to dum without deliberation from the office of the non-indicted 1's office which was 80 meters away from the scene of murder (the above facts are expressed by the witness testimony of the non-indicted 3 and the result of the first instance examination).

Therefore, since all of the arguments are without merit, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Han Sung-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court